Iran: Ex President Khatami Says Holocaust a Historic Fact

[sabra]

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Religion&loid=8.0.270028823&par=0

IRAN: EX PRESIDENT KHATAMI SAYS HOLOCAUST A HISTORIC FACT

Tehran, 28 Feb. (AKI) - Iran's former president Mohammad Khatami told the Isna news agency on Tuesday that the "Holocaust is a historic fact." Khatami's successor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly denied the existence of the Holocaust since December last year in a number of speeches against Israel. However, Iran's former president also said that Israel had "made a bad use of this historic fact with the persecution of the Palestinian people."

"We must acknowledge that the crimes committed by Germany's Nazi regime were a massacre of innocents, including a great number of Jews," said Khatami.

The reformist leader, who now heads two non governmental organisations promoting dialogue among cultures and religions, also warned that "the religion we follow condemns the assassination of even one innocent person, including an innocent Jew."

[BootinUp]

1. Watch your back Khatami. n/t

[RISE_UP]

2. The most important phrase...

in this article is "former president"

[Karmakaze]

3. Yeah... Thanks to Bush and his sabre rattling.

Khatami was probably the best thing that happened in iran in a long time, then along comes Bush and through propaganda and threats encourages the Iranian people to once again become militant, thus ensuring Khatami's loss.

Nice one.

[Texacrat]

5. Seriously, some people think that Bush has all the power in the world

How about the simpler explanation: Khatami was but a mere puppet for the mullahs in Iran.

Iran is NOT a democracy, regardless of what some on here are delusional enough to believe.

[Karmakaze]

6. Seriously

You can believe what you want, but the fact remains that before Bush, Iranians were pushing for more freedom etc. Then Bush gets in and calls them the Axis of Evil, and next thing you know the US is the Great Satan again.

As for your version being the simpler explanation:

My explanation: People sick of being called evil and afraid of being bombed bring to power a hardliner

Your explanation: Religious leaders in an attempt to somehow fool the West put in power a moderate who goes about reducing their power. Then when Bush gets into power the hardliners decide that appearing weak is a bad move and put in power someone far more likely to encourage US bombs to start dropping.

Yep, your explanation is so much simpler - as long as you assume that Iranians are crazy AND stupid.

[Malikshah]

8. Spot-frikkin-on

PNAC anyone...

[Terran1212]

7. I have friends from Iran and they say Bush had a hand in it

Because of the nationalism he stirred up.

[TheVirginian]

9. Don't bother educating people here...

This isn't a board for people to get informed, its a board for people to reinforce any idea they have, as long as its anti-Bush and pro-Democrat.

[Strelnikov_]

10. If You Have Such A Negative View Of This Board

Why are you even wasting your time here?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. Search by author, here I go. -nt

[chartresbleu]

12. who needs educating????

one of the worst mistakes bush has made was to not encourage and support the reform movement in iran. certainly the hard line fundamentalists still controlled much of the power in iran, but the majority of people in the country were fed up with being in a fundamentalist theocratic state, were protesting the conditions and voting in moderates. it was the perfect test csse for a president from this country to hold to the worlds scrutiny. after a couple of decades of theocratic rule, these muslims were choosing to say no to the hardline fundamentalists. it was a great opportunity, and yet because of the pnac agenda, they instead demonized iran, made them part of the axis of evil and started to hint at possiblity of milatary actions. there can be no doubt that many of the iranians who had become disillusioned with the mullahs backtracked into a defensive nationalistic position after bush started threatening iran. this is not about just being blindly anti-bush, but rather one of the many reasons peopel here are anti-bush. bush absolutely deserves to be castigated for the way he handled iran, it was a mistake of disastorus magnitude.

[oblivious]

14. I think s/he must mean: "Dont try to brainwash people here".

They're too well informed.

[stepnw1f]

17. lol...

Riiiight.... go back to freeper land.

Actually here's a challenge. Tell us all what that idea is, oh independent one.

[popeye76]

20. At least we haven't banned you

In FR, your kind of post ("This isn't a board for people to get informed") would have made you a banned member already, and all of your posts would have been purged. How do I know this? I've written the exact same thing you wrote (well the first half of your sentence) on FR fourteen times, and I was banned within 5 minutes fourteen times.

[stepnw1f]

16. You Are Kidding Right...

please say you jest.

[VirginiaDem]

18. You're right.

Khatami was heavily criticized for not reforming enough but in reality he was backed into a corner by the mullahs. The Iranian democratic reforms are overrated and Ahdaminejad's election shows it--either the elections were rigged by the mullahs or the people actually wanted him.

[Behind the Aegis]

4. Good find!

Were he still president, things could be very different right now.

Does Diebold have an Iranian contract? :shrug:

[Chomskyite]

13. Is foreign policy so complicated?

To me it defies description that Bush and crew couldn't see that the best course with Iran, starting in 2001, was to very quietly encourage democratic change, with money and with information. Tip your hand either way, and the mullahs turn up the saber rattling, and you have to start all over.

But the Bushies were as usual incompetent. Or perhaps uninterested in any Iranian moves toward democracy. Most likely both.

[Minstrel Boy]

15. I don't think it was incompetence.

The neocons wanted a radicalized Iran, because they seek conflict, not dialogue.

[Chomskyite]

19. Definitely possible

I've never been one to simply take what the neo-cons SAY they believe on face value. Leo Strauss, their intellectual progenitor, was famous for saying that in Western democracies the people would have to be lied to so that some government policies that couldn't be explained to them would be carried out.